Parties, priorities, politics, and the mess that is our Congress

[doc_strange]

holzman has a post about what I shall henceforth term "The change in tide that saved Hyde."

He says, "There are no acceptable excuses" to not tackling the Hyde amendment in this Congress, with its Democratic majority and a pro-choice President.

The big excuse given is of course that the President and Congress are "saving political capital" for the bigger thing of healthcare. And whatever else comes along next week. You have to question their priorities if they really are believers in abortion choice (or medical/personal privacy) as a right. Once you premise a right -- what's a bigger core issue than basic rights? Seems kind of ... expeditious. Mercenary. False?

And what about DADT, which was supposedly a major item in the President's sights, and which requires only an executive branch process to repeal?

Saving political capital at the expense of what they claim are the rights of constituents? How would that have played in the Civil Rights era if LBJ had explicitly held off on the Civil Rights Act to instead pass Medicare with his social capital intact?

Even if one isn't a believer in such things as-matters-of-right or as-rooted-in-rights, then there is still a good chance the government's current play in them may strike you as very peculiar - perhaps even unconstitutional. Whether as a matter of privileges and immunities, or the government's longstanding overstep into the realm of religious establishment or into the states' police powers, or whatnot, they may seem rather expeditious runarounds of the basic structure of government as set forth in that old thing, that piece of paper, that Constitution. That is, these things raise questions about the legality of government action and its role entirely. Then I am sure some of you see these as government intervention to fix government intervention, bringing to mind the sadly-funny comedy routine of the klutz fixing what he broke, and thereby breaking more.

That there are many schismatic issues I have discussed with people over the years where an approach completely off the two-party tug-of-war strikes almost everyone but the party-line extremists as a good way to go. Of most interest to me, almost universally the approaches that are broadly accepted in these discussions stem from core constitutional principles. The extremists are too caught up in the symbols of the fight to realize or accept a solution completely outside the symbolic realm - a realm that empowers and emboldens them (as victims and victors), that gets them party backers, that keeps the rivals-in-two-camps game going.

I was just talking to tezliana about the need for third parties. But not a far left party. Not a far right party. (The "new parties" always seem to come from the fringes dissatisfied they don't get all the symbolic stuff they want.) But also not "in the middle" of the symbolic false dichotomy extremes, each of which have contradictory positions, and the symbolic structures of which are the problem for many to whom I talk. These are the people now relegated to being the oddballs in one or the other polarizing party, or independents, or members of tiny parties with little representation. People relegated to having to pick apart the symbols tossed around each issue to decide where they stand, because the press only talks in the symbols they are fed.

So, one or more third, off-the-linear-map parties. For example, a party backing the core constitutional rights of speech, protest and redress, religious practice and government non-establishment of religion, security against search (including "privacy" and therefore choice, whatever their take on what a fetus is or is not, plus all the rest of the 4th A.), self-defense, due process, fair and speedy trial, etc., etc. A party that understands that rights are what governments cannot do to you, not what other people must do for you. A party looking not to blindly remove federal government with a hatchet but to trim the areas where it's grown into the states' core functions and has been expensively messing up, and to increase the areas where it's abdicated its proper functions and the states are absent or messing up. A party that doesn't cry "commerce" to regulate that which will never move in commerce, and doesn't cry "states' responsibility" to handle goods that always move in commerce. A party that thinks the Constitution isn't some piece of paper it can and should trample or selectively ignore any time it can make the cry of necessity and urgency.

Just an example. Dunno. That one might actually get my vote. Me and the over 1/3 of the country with strong allegiance to neither party. Coalition pulling to the center should happen among parties, not just within one. Coalitions are also less able to coerce members away from core goals with the threat of pulling election finance. For example of the travesty that is coalition within a party, now we get a big healthcare package that it seems has insufficient internal party support; given the work and political fury that went into it, it "must" be passed, and that will be done with ever-less-savory attachments to buy votes (some paid in cash and some in what the bargainers themselves call rights).

Unfortunately, both parties keep passing election-regulating legislation that ensures a national third party has almost no chance to work. And finally, the media will do all it can to paint any such party as solely consisting of the extreme edges of either big party, left or right, simple linear distribution.

Comments

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

rights are what governments cannot do to you, not what other people must do for you.

An excellent way of putting it. As observed elsewhere last night, you have no right to anything that someone else must work to provide for you.

I'd vote for your third party. I'd like to see the Libertarian Party become it, and I think it currently has the best shot at doing so, but I don't know if it will. Unfortunately, as you note, the Democrats and Republicans have — quite intentionally, I'm sure — rigged the rules of the political game in such a way as to make it very, very difficult for any third party to ever get its foot in the door, and will resist any kind of electoral reform in the US to their dying breaths. Their idea of electoral reform is to quash dissent and ensure their access to lobbyists' money.

[docstrange.livejournal.com]

I liked your formulation as well, but being a lawyer, fall back onto that old piece of paper for reference, with its general approach to rights being vs. the government. There is of course a whole realm of jurisprudence and philosophy dedicated to "what is a right."

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

Enh, $anarchist_position: "We shouldn't have federal funding for any of that crap anyway".

[docstrange.livejournal.com]

Change that big piece of paper, then, or else admit the $anarchist_position is the same as the statists': There are no rules. Don't anarchists believe in contract?

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

Show me where it says health care services (or abortion) are covered in the big piece of paper.

[docstrange.livejournal.com]

Show me where I said it did?

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

Your buddy is lamenting the Hyde Amendment. I'm saying the feds shouldn't be paying for any of that crap. You tell me that means we need to change the Constitution if I want to avoid that. What other conclusion should I draw?

[docstrange.livejournal.com]

My post was a lot broader than that, so by "that crap" and a generic anarchist position, I took you to mean pretty much all federal activities. The Constitution is certainly no anarchist (collectivist or individualist type) document.

If you meant only those parts, then please note I did state:

Even if one isn't a believer in such things as-matters-of-right or as-rooted-in-rights, then there is still a good chance the government's current play in them may strike you as very peculiar - perhaps even unconstitutional. Whether as a matter of privileges and immunities, or the government's longstanding overstep into the realm of religious establishment or into the states' police powers, or whatnot, they may seem rather expeditious runarounds of the basic structure of government as set forth in that old thing, that piece of paper, that Constitution. That is, these things raise questions about the legality of government action and its role entirely.

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

And yes, of course anarchists believe in contract. If you'd be so kind as to show me where I personally signed the Constitution, I'll happily abide by it as a contract I'm bound to.

[docstrange.livejournal.com]

So you do not believe in anything but direct personal contract. Without courts. Or rules.

Which absent courts results in nothing more than medieval feudalism.

So you're a Maoist?

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

Which absent courts results in nothing more than medieval feudalism.

Good that you've declared the answer prior to asking the question. Sorry, I'm not playing.

[docstrange.livejournal.com]

Do you really want me to walk through a critique of Bakunin?

Ok. Contract only between individuals. Every rule must be individually adopted by each person.

Disputes over contracts cannot be resolved except by reference to external rules. Which may be disagreed over. Which cannot pre-exist the players. Enforcement is possible, therefore, by force only, and by rules the loser must per se not agree with. Ergo the only law comes from the muzzle of a gun. Mao. Ergo, folks band together to protect themselves, create courts and the like, and enforce their views, under the protection of strong actors. Which is the seed of feudalism more or less.

[docstrange.livejournal.com]

Reading this again, I think I misread you off track as meaning blanket no-gov rather than the constitutional argument that these items are patently not in the realm of (this) government. Thus your response below sent me further off track.

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

Less pithy version:

"$anarchist_position: People have a 'right' to an abortion insofar as they are independent entities and no one else has the legitimate authority to prevent them from having one. People do not have a 'right' to an abortion that allows them to forcibly extract funding to acquire one from uninterested third parties. Thus, the Hyde Amendment is irrelevant to the discussion of whether one believes that abortion is a 'right' (in my view, which I realize many people do not share) because the federal government shouldn't be paying for any of that crap anyway, because that's not a legitimate function under the Constitution."

I suppose "$libertarian_position" might have been clearer, but I'm not one, so I dislike confusing the issue by issuing position statements from that POV. I am willing to contest the legitimacy of the actual Constitution itself, but that's not where I was going with this. If you can get me a U.S. Federal Government that actually stays within the limits of the Constitution, I'll sacrifice my principles on the altar of expediency joyously. But I don't think I'm going to see that beast in my lifetime.

[docstrange.livejournal.com]

Hear, hear. Thanks for the expository depithification.

[chorus.livejournal.com]

I'm sure you know I've wanted a viable third party for years (enough so that I will vote even for the ones that don't stand much of a chance, provided I really think they're the closest match to my ideals), so, yeah.

I'm especially keen on the idea of trying to find some people who like all the parts of the Constitution and not just selected bits as and when it suits them.

You want to know just how much I dislike the current state of politics? The other day I thought to myself, "I wonder whether or not I could actually win if I ran for office." Me. ME. I mean, seriously.

[docstrange.livejournal.com]

Yes, they mostly all suck.

Politics starts locally. Lots to be done without even running for office.

[apostle-of-eris.livejournal.com]

My own, personal, long-standing stand on “third parties” is that mathematically you can't have a third until you already have a second.

As for your proposal, one of your bumper stickers might be
What part of "promote the general Welfare" don't you understand?

[docstrange.livejournal.com]

Hmm. While a good jibe, I'm not sure it goes after either mainstream party in particular, nor both. Also, it's a peculiar question. "Promote the general welfare" is a purpose for the powers given to the federal government, not a power itself. The Constitution wasn't intended to give "any power necessary to promote the general welfare" but to give a specific set of powers in order to promote the general welfare (inter alia).

[ivy]

I'm guessing that he's saving DADT for closer to the election, to win stumping points with the currently disaffected GLBT voters.

I'd be delighted by viable third parties that were not immediately hijacked by total jerks capable of being bigger and louder than most. (From their own sites and platforms, not from the media representation of same.) I vote third party when I can with a conscience, but it doesn't seem to do much, even locally.

[docstrange.livejournal.com]

I'm guessing that he's saving DADT for closer to the election, to win stumping points with the currently disaffected GLBT voters.

Horrible. Maybe horrible politics ultimately. I mean, "Hi, I really care about your rights. They are critical! Real rights. Equal rights issue, here! But they can wait until politically expedient."

[xthread.livejournal.com]

As much as the Founders wanted to prevent the country devolving into Faction, I'm pretty sure that first-past-the-post means that third parties don't work, purely because the math doesn't work. That is to say, first past the post leads to an emergent two party system.

Now if I could remember where I read the game theory analysis of that, I'd be in great shape...

[docstrange.livejournal.com]

That is basically correct. But even in first past the post, single seat elections, third parties can win smaller elections. They can also produce coalition even in large elections where two parties agree to throw weight behind a candidate. The big parties today play at bringing the errant sheep party back into the fold, but that's not the only way things can work (though they often do, again, due to the lure of party warchest money). Even if that's all we get, so long as it's a party off the standard left/right line and not at one or the other end, it will be an improvement. Right now, the sorts of third parties we see are still on the linear distribution. They are also mostly at one or the other end of it.